Nancy Mace’s former top aide is weighing a primary challenge to the South Carolina Republican, setting up what could be one of the campaign season’s most bitter intra-party clashes.

Dan Hanlon, who served as chief of staff to Mace until late last month, is meeting with potential donors and potential people for his team as he weighs running against her, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge who spoke on condition of anonymity. Hanlon became Mace’s chief in 2022, rising quickly to the top spot in her Hill office after serving in the Trump administration for four years.

Hanlon has until South Carolina’s March 30 filing deadline to decide on a run, though candidates usually need to get their operations up and running early if they want to be competitive, particularly against incumbents. Any primary challenge to Mace could get serious attention from the upper ranks of the House GOP, where some feelings are still bruised by her surprising vote to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) back in October.

“Hanlon has been pleased with how well the idea has been received and how many people are looking for a Mace alternative, both money people in D.C. and movers and shakers in S.C.,” one of the Republicans familiar with his decision-making said.

While primary challenges are nothing new on the Hill, it’s rare to see a member face a direct challenge from a top aide who departed weeks earlier. Hanlon is well-positioned to expose Mace’s weak points during a primary battle, given his high-level knowledge of her office. But if he runs, he’d also leave himself open to counter-attacks from her backers that he’s motivated by a grudge against his former employer.

A spokesperson for Mace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

GOP critics of Mace — particularly allies of McCarthy — are still looking for ways to unseat her after she joined seven other Republicans in voting to strip his gavel. Most of the other GOP lawmakers who moved to eject McCarthy were more predictable foes and members of the House Freedom Caucus.

Mace’s ejection vote also turned into an awkward moment for Hanlon, however. After the ouster vote, in early October, McCarthy blasted her on national television and claimed that he’d called Hanlon to ask “where have I not kept my word” when it came to Mace.

“[The] Chief of staff said, ‘You have kept your word, 100 percent,’” McCarthy said at the time. “Her chief of staff told all of us, we have kept every single one of our words. And he said he’s told her that too.”

Mace, for her part, has argued that she voted McCarthy out was because he wasn’t truthful with her.

Hanlon departed Mace’s office in early December after she had already moved to replace him as chief of staff, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Tensions spiked on his way out the door as Mace’s incoming chief of staff, Lorie Khatod, called the Capitol Police to the office as Hanlon returned to give back his keys and other office-related items, according to three people familiar with the matter.

One of the Republicans who confirmed Hanlon’s potential candidacy even predicted that other former Mace staffers would join his campaign, a signal of former aides’ growing alienation toward her.

Rep. Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat mounting a long-shot challenge to President Joe Biden, drew sharp criticism from fellow Democrats in Congress after he removed language about diversity, equity and inclusion from his campaign website.

POLITICO reported on Tuesday night that Phillips scrubbed the language amid public criticism of DEI from one of his top donors.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a prominent progressive running for Senate in California, rebuked Phillips for the move, which she said she had not previously read about.

“I think that speaks volumes as to what his values are,” Lee said. Phillips has already angered some House Democratic colleagues with his decision to take on Biden.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) was blunt: “I’m disappointed.” Beyer said Democrats should not allow themselves to be pressured by the right into “abandoning things we believe in, but he may have had a good reason.”

The donor who criticized the language, hedge fund investor Bill Ackman, previously called Phillips’ DEI language a “mistake” and said the candidate was “getting educated” about the topic. Phillips’ campaign confirmed on Tuesday that it replaced the DEI language with the phrase “Equity & Restorative Justice,” stating that DEI — a decades-old initiative in academia and government aimed at promoting fairer representation of groups that have faced historic discrimination — “now means such divergent things to different people.”

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, posted on X implying that Ackman’s $1 million contribution to the Phillips effort led to the campaign dropping the DEI language.

A Phillips campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Beyond Lee, other Democrats hadn’t directly seen the news of Phillips’ move but still took the opportunity to criticize him.

“The Democratic coalition is overwhelmingly women, people of color, LGBT communities,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “I mean, if you don’t believe in championing them, then good luck.”

Up in New Hampshire, where Phillips’ has grounded his longshot presidential primary bid, some Democrats echoed those frustrations. Longtime Democratic operative Kathy Sullivan, who is helping to lead the write-in effort for Biden in the state, called Phillips’ moves “grotesque.”

But she didn’t expect it to translate into paid attack ads against Phillips in New Hampshire, given that “a lot of what we’re doing is set in stone now because of timing.”

“From our social media perspective, talking to friends and neighbors, it’s something I hope gets out there in a widespread manner,” she said. “Word-of-mouth is big in our state, since we’re a small state.”

Elena Schneider contributed.

Another speaker, another plead to House GOP lawmakers to unify — at least in public — and stop leaking the drama that plays out behind closed doors.

As usual, the request is proving ineffective.

Speaker Mike Johnson complained about members airing their grievances to the media at a private conference meeting Wednesday morning. Almost immediately, multiple members vented to reporters about Johnson’s spending strategy, as the speaker pushes to pass a short-term funding bill as soon as Thursday, the ongoing fight over border policy changes — and the leak squabble.

“I think the speaker’s been concerned about some loser in conference [that] is live-streaming or passing on to media what’s happening in conference as we try to discuss strategy. But I think I would turn the tables — I would just go totally transparent,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Bishop urged Johnson to instead go scorched earth on the border, saying he should stake out how the conference can get a conservative win, such as on new border policies, then try to get every Republican to commit to fighting for it.

“And whoever won’t commit to it, [he should] let the American people know who that is,” Bishop said, recounting his message to reporters after the meeting.

It’s not the first time Johnson has made it clear the leaks are frustrating him. During a Sunday night press call, Johnson signaled he felt uncomfortable sharing further details of his spending plan, worried they’d be publicized amid negotiations with Senate Democrats. It’s an echo of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who would scold reporters for listening in and implore his own members to stop sharing such details.

It’s a further sign of the seemingly impossible problems in the House GOP. Johnson started leading the conference about three months ago, and conservative members were convinced he would bring in a new type of leadership and fight for their priorities. Instead, he’s facing near-identical headaches to McCarthy, including leaks and growing backlash from his right flank, plus added resentments from some members over McCarthy’s ouster.

The squabbling over leaks largely overshadowed talk of the funding deadline during Wednesday’s closed-door meeting, though Republicans acknowledge there’s still plenty of tension over that, too.

In further evidence of the near-constant bickering, Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) accused leadership of giving House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.) more time at the mics.

“I go up there and I get a minute and I get gaveled out. How does that happen? How do you think other members feel when they see that he gets treated in a different way that’s special?” Miller said after the meeting.

Miller added that there should be consequences for those Republicans who voted to boot McCarthy or others who aren’t following conference rules, a nod to conservatives who have blocked floor action several times in recent months: “We need disciplinary action — removing committee assignments, cutting off access to fundraising or things of that nature and actually making them pay for their actions.”

Rep. Jeff Duncan won’t seek reelection in his solidly Republican district in western South Carolina, opening the seat he’s held since coming into Congress as part of the Tea Party wave of 2010.

“At some point in a career, one needs to step aside and allow others to bring fresh and abilities,” he wrote in a post to X, formerly known as Twitter. “I will not seek re-election to the US House of Representatives.”

Duncan is a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said in September 2023 that his family was “dealing with a difficult and private moment” after his wife filed for divorce.

Rep. Tom Emmer, the No. 3 House Republican, raised nearly $2.5 million in the fourth quarter of last year, bringing his 2023 total to more than $10 million, according to fundraising numbers first provided to POLITICO.

The majority whip announced his year-end fundraising figures Wednesday as House Republicans gather for their weekly conference meeting. Almost half of this fundraising haul was given to the House GOP campaign arm or directly to members and candidates.

“America is counting on House Republicans to deliver the conservative policies the country needs to get back on track,” Emmer said in a statement. “I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans who donated to our efforts. We must remain laser-focused on our mission of growing this majority.”

A former chair of House Republicans’ campaign arm, Emmer and other members of leadership know fundraising is not only an important part of efforts to keeping the GOP majority but also expected among the heads of the party.

Last cycle, Republicans won far fewer seats than they hoped, giving them a razor-thin majority that has defined the 118th Congress for ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his predecessor Mike Johnson.

Top House Democratic leaders endorsed Rep. Summer Lee’s reelection bid Wednesday, a strong show of support for the Pennsylvania Democrat as she faces competitive primary challenges potentially funded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“We proudly endorse Summer Lee’s re-election campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives so she can help us take back the House majority, oppose the extreme MAGA Republican agenda and continue our tremendous progress for Pennsylvanians,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said in a statement obtained by POLITICO.

Lee, a progressive allied with the “squad” of liberal lawmakers, weathered an onslaught of spending by the super PAC affiliated with AIPAC last cycle. In a statement, she thanked the leadership trio for their backing and said she would “look forward to continuing to work with them to protect abortion access, voting rights, and clean energy investments to serve the people of PA’s 12th Congressional District.”

The endorsements come amid persistent jitters on the left about AIPAC-backed primary challengers, which prompted top progressives to clamor for support from their leaders. Democratic leaders generally endorse incumbents against primary challenges in line with longstanding policy and have already lent their endorsement this cycle to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) amid her own primary challenges.

Lee is unlikely to confront a competitive general election in the deep-blue, Pittsburgh-area seat. But she, along with other progressive Democrats, earned the online ire of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups for their outspoken criticism of the Israeli government as it ramped up its war in Gaza.

Lee has two Democratic challengers in the April primary: Edgewood Borough Council member Bhavini Patel and Laurie MacDonald, president and CEO of the Center for Victims. Both candidates have emphasized a more centrist bent in their campaigns, with Patel particularly critical of Lee’s record on Israel.

House Republicans have paused their efforts to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, as they negotiate a new date for a closed-door interview.

The House Rules Committee will no longer tee up a contempt resolution for a floor vote during its meeting on Tuesday, two people familiar with the decision told POLITICO, contrary to Republicans’ previous plans.

A leadership aide familiar with the decision, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, added that “negotiations are now underway for him to comply with the subpoena, so we are holding on the contempt vote while they work to set a date.”

The House was previously expected to vote Thursday on making that referral to the Justice Department. That would have handed the ultimate decision on whether or not the president’s son would face charges over his failure to comply with the House subpoena to U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves. Four individuals have been held in contempt of Congress during the Biden administration, and the Justice Department pursued charges against two of them.

Republicans would need near-total unity in order to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress this week. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) is working remotely until next month as he undergoes treatment for blood cancer. He also told Republicans during a conference call on Sunday night that Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) will be absent this week as he recovers from a car crash.

The vote looked increasingly unlikely after Hunter Biden’s lawyers, in complete reversal of their prior position, alerted GOP investigators on Friday that he would comply if they issued a new subpoena. Republicans originally subpoenaed Hunter Biden last year for a deposition on Dec. 13, which he skipped and countered by demanding a public hearing.

Both GOP investigators and party leadership signaled after the letter that while they would formally keep the contempt vote on the books, their thinking would change if they could reach a deal that resulted in Hunter Biden sitting for a deposition. The House is currently scheduled to leave for a one-week recess on Friday and canceled votes on Tuesday due to inclement weather.

A spokesperson for the Oversight Committee GOP said on Tuesday that they are currently working with Hunter Biden’s attorneys to schedule his appearance.

“Negotiations are ongoing this afternoon, and in conjunction with the disruption to member travel and canceling votes, the House Rules Committee isn’t considering the contempt resolution today to give the attorneys additional time to reach an agreement,” the spokesperson added.

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as a key witness in their sprawling impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Republicans voted to formalize that inquiry late last year, even as they remain short of the votes to impeach Biden.

The GOP investigation has largely focused on the business deals of Hunter Biden and other family members. While Republicans have found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to boost his own influence and poked holes in previous statements by the White House and Joe Biden, they haven’t yet found direct evidence showing actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president were meant to benefit his family’s business arrangements.

Speaker Mike Johnson is publicly and privately panning the Senate’s ongoing border and immigration negotiations. Senate Republicans are reminding him that it’s the best deal he’ll ever get.

Republicans senators said on Tuesday that they see only worse opportunities ahead to craft a border bill that can pass, given that Democrats who run the Senate and White House are now considering major changes to asylum policy, new expulsion authorities and perhaps even putting limits on presidential parole authority. If Republicans try to wait for a better deal after November’s election, senators say, they could end up with GOP control over Congress and the White House — but Democrats who are in no mood to deal on the issue.

“There’s absolutely no way that we would get the kind of border policy that’s been talked about right now with a Republican majority in the Senate, unless we get a 60-vote majority, which isn’t going to happen … there aren’t many Democrats that are going to be available,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the minority whip. “This is a unique moment in time. It’s an opportunity to get some conservative border policy.”

Thune described the current situation at the nation’s southern border as a “national security emergency.” If House Republicans slam the door on an immigration deal, some in the Senate GOP worry that won’t exactly jibe with their message that the border is a five-alarm fire.

Republicans contend that the domestic national security risks of surging migration are just as important as foreign aid. Over the past two months, that argument has become the reason that the GOP won’t move forward on Ukraine aid — compelling reluctant Democrats to the table in a bid to shake loose President Joe Biden’s $100 billion-plus national security spending proposal.

Now senators and the Biden administration are discussing a deal that would restrict migration and beef up border funding, while also sending billions of dollars to Ukraine. Republicans spent months building a messaging campaign focused on what they see as a growing border crisis. Some of them, including Texas’ own GOP governor, might be more interested in a compromise solution than delaying until next year.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he recently discussed with his state’s governor, Greg Abbott, the idea of waiting out Democrats for a better deal after the election. Abbott’s response, according to Cornyn, was: “So we’re just supposed to take this flow of humanity across the border for the next year?

“I don’t think we should fail to do our duty just because the House may have a different view,” Cornyn said. “It makes no sense to wait if we could do something now that would be meaningful.”

Over the weekend, Johnson posted on X “absolutely not” in response to a Fox News screen that criticized a potential border deal; Thune responded that “unfortunately, there’s a lot of stuff leaked out there which doesn’t reflect some of what’s being discussed and negotiated.”

But Johnson’s position isn’t exactly a secret: He wants the hardline H.R. 2 bill that the House passed last year, reiterating his position in a conference call on Sunday.

Senate Democrats aren’t going to support that bill. And if Donald Trump wins the presidency this fall, they won’t be eager to help him restrict immigration; one of his proposals to help the immigrant group known as Dreamers and restrict legal immigration was roundly defeated in 2018 (other, more moderate options failed too).

There’s a reason immigration bills don’t go anywhere in Congress: They’re big, they’re complicated and they tick off each party’s base. At the moment, the Senate GOP is making a clear recommendation to its House counterparts, who are quite in tune with that base: If we get a deal, take the win.

“We’ve got a giant problem with thousands of people coming every day. So we’ve got to work to find solutions. I wouldn’t shut the door.” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

The Senate tabled a resolution from Bernie Sanders that would have required the State Department to report on whether Israel has violated human rights in its ongoing war with Hamas, revealing the ongoing division between various blocs of the Democratic Party.

The vote to table the resolution, called under the Foreign Assistance Act and requiring a simple majority for passage, passed 72-11. Democrats sided with the chamber’s Republicans in defeating the resolution amid a conflict that’s killed more than 23,000 people in Gaza, by recent estimates.

“If you believe that the [bombing] campaign has been indiscriminate, as I do, then we have a responsibility to ask this question,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on the floor last week. “If you believe Israel has done nothing wrong, then this information should support that belief.”

Only after that report landed — or if the State Department failed to meet the 30-day deadline to deliver it — would the U.S. be able to freeze or alter aid to Israel.

The vote on the privileged resolution occurred as the Washington area deals with winter weather that prevented many lawmakers from returning to the Hill. Sanders himself was delayed in returning Tuesday afternoon.

Sanders said the provision of the law has never been invoked since its adoption in 1976.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed the resolution as an attempt at “tying the hands of a close ally locked in a necessary battle against savage terrorists” and a gift to “left-wing, anti-Israel activists” in remarks on the Senate floor.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a GOP foreign policy hawk, slammed the resolution as an effort that would “empower the terrorist” and “maybe the most tone deaf thing in the history of the Senate.”

“To the left, what are you thinking?” he asked on the floor. “A ceasefire with Hamas only allows Hamas to regroup.”

But the defeat of the resolution wasn’t due to Republicans alone. In a statement, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said that while he is “deeply concerned” about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and how Israel is conducting its campaign, he would not support the Sanders effort.

“I will continue raising these issues directly with Israeli officials and the Biden administration,” Coons said in a statement. “I do not, however, believe that risking the suspension of all U.S. assistance or publicly rebuking Israel in a way that could embolden its enemies will address these concerns, nor will it improve the humanitarian situation.”